MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132559292 · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2021.02.009

Efficacy and Safety of Rovalpituzumab Tesirine Compared With Topotecan as Second-Line Therapy in DLL3-High SCLC: Results From the Phase 3 TAHOE Study

2021· article· en· W3132559292 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona Blackhall, Kevin Jao, Laurent Greillier, Byoung Chul Cho, Konstantin Penkov, Noemı́ Reguart, Margarita Majem, Kristiaan Nackaerts, Konstantinos Syrigos, Karin Holmskov Hansen, Wolfgang Schuette, Jeremy Cetnar, Federico Cappuzzo, Isamu Okamoto, Mustafa Erman, Seppo W. Langer, Terufumi Kato, Harry J.M. Groen, Zhaowen Sun, Yan Luo, Poonam Tanwani, L. Caffrey, Philip Komarnitsky, Niels Reinmuth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeOno PharmaceuticalPharmaMarShionogiAstellas PharmaDaiichi-SankyoCancer Research UKLes Laboratories Pierre FabreRegeneron PharmaceuticalsAmgenBoehringer IngelheimTaiho PharmaceuticalF. Hoffmann-La RocheChugai PharmaceuticalRocheNovartisAbbVieMerckPfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineTopotecanSecond lineOncologyInternal medicinePhase (matter)First lineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction DLL3, an atypical Notch ligand, is expressed in SCLC tumors but is not detectable in normal adult tissues. Rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T) is an antibody-drug conjugate containing a DLL3-targeting antibody tethered to a cytotoxic agent pyrrolobenzodiazepine by means of a protease-cleavable linker. The efficacy and safety of Rova-T compared with topotecan as second-line therapy in patients with SCLC expressing high levels of DLL3 (DLL3-high) was evaluated. Methods The TAHOE study was an open-label, two-to-one randomized, phase 3 study comparing Rova-T with topotecan as second-line therapy in DLL3-high advanced or metastatic SCLC. Rova-T (0.3 mg/kg) was administered intravenously on day 1 of a 42-day cycle for two cycles, with two additional cycles available to patients who met protocol-defined criteria for continued dosing. Topotecan (1.5 mg/m 2 ) was administered intravenously on days 1 to 5 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Patients randomized to Rova-T (n = 296) and topotecan (n = 148) were included in the efficacy analyses. The median age was 64 years, and 77% had the extensive disease at initial diagnosis. The median OS (95% confidence interval) was 6.3 months (5.6–7.3) in the Rova-T arm and 8.6 months (7.7–10.1) in the topotecan arm (hazard ratio, 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.17–1.82]). An independent data monitoring committee recommended that enrollment be discontinued because of the shorter OS observed with Rova-T compared with topotecan. Safety profiles for both drugs were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions Compared with topotecan, which is the current standard second-line chemotherapy, Rova-T exhibited an inferior OS and higher rates of serosal effusions, photosensitivity reaction, and peripheral edema in patients with SCLC. A considerable unmet therapeutic need remains in this population.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.413 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations258
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic OncologySame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207